transkribus_kws_get_hitsRetrieve keyword spotting hits for a Transkribus resource ID, filtering by keyword and result range to locate terms in documents.
Get hits for a keyword spotting query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| index | No | Start index (0-based) | |
| keyword | No | Filter by keyword | |
| nValues | No | Number of results (-1 for all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / properties / nValues / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of results"New value: +"Number of results (-1 for all)"v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of pagination via index/nValues, result shape, or the fact that 'id' refers to a previously created KWS query.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no filler and the core operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than maximal clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the burden of explaining what hits look like and how the indexing/paging parameters behave. For a four-parameter retrieval tool with sibling overlap, the definition is too thin to fully guide correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, index, keyword, and nValues. The description adds no extra semantics (e.g., that nValues -1 means all, or that index is a paging offset), so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a clear verb (Get) and resource (hits for a keyword spotting query), so an agent can understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as transkribus_kws_get_result_data, transkribus_kws_get_keywords, or transkribus_kws_list_queries, leaving ambiguity about which KWS retrieval call to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other kws_* siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing query id from kws_create_query or kws_list_queries). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.